1

Damages during February, 6-24 2017 Çanakkale earthquake swarm

Ramazan Livaoğlu1, Mehmet Ömer Timurağaoğlu1, Cavit Serhatoğlu1, Mahmud Sami Döven2 1Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey 2Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Dumlupinar University, Kütahya, Turkey

Correspondence to: Ramazan Livaoğlu (rliva@uludag.edu.tr) 5

Abstract. On February 6, 2017 a swarm of earthquakes began at the western end of the Turkey. This has been the first

recorded swarm at Çanakkale region since continuous seismic monitoring began in 1970. The number of located earthquakes

increased during the next ten days. This paper describes the output of a survey carried out in the earthquake prone towns of

Ayvacık, Çanakkale, Turkey, in February 2017 after the earthquakes. Observations collected on site regard traditional

buildings at the rural area of Ayvacık. A description of the main structural features and their effects on the most frequently 10

viewed damage modes are related in plane, out of plane behaviour of the wall regarding construction practice, connection

type etc. It was found that there were no convenient connection details like cavity-ties or sufficient mortar strength resulting

in decreased and/or lack of lateral load bearing capacity of the wall.

1 Introduction

On February 6, 2017, a swarm of earthquakes began at the western end of the Turkey at 06:51 local time. This has been the 15

first recorded swarm at this side of Turkey since continuous seismic monitoring began in 1970. The number of located

earthquakes increased during the next ten days, experienced five times bigger than Mw=5.0 (Table 1). These data are taken

from DEMP (Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency). The largest peak from these medium-sized earthquakes are

Mw =5.3 February, 6 2017 and Mw=5.3 February, 6 2017 at a depth of 7 and 9.83 km, respectively. The earthquakes and

aftershocks taken place on this area between February 6-24, 2017 are shown in Fig. 1a. 1930 earthquakes (M>2.0) occurred 20

up to February 24. The propagation of the epicenters of activities and their magnitudes proved the earthquake swarm

characteristics. Fig. 2 shows the evidence of the swarm. This graph epicted distribution of both Magnitude vs occurrence

date and Magnitude vs cumulative number of the earthquakes via time between 6 to 16 February.

According to active fault map prepared by MRE (General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration), these

earthquakes are occurred as strike-slip normal fault in the region near the Tuzla segment of Kestanbol fault and Gülpınar 25

fault (Fig. 1b). There are five villages which are closer than 5 km to the epicenter of the earthquakes and around 30 villages

were struck which damaged nearly 2600 houses, and these earthquakes fortunately did not cause any deaths. The closest

center of county, where there is almost no critical damage and loss of life, is approximately 15~20 km far from the epicenters

of the earthquakes.

30

2

Table 1 Parameters of Ayvacık Earthquakes (DEMP, 2017)

Date Local time Latitude Longitude Depth (km) Magnitude (ML,W) Max Acc.-PGA (g)

06.02.2017 06:51 39.5495 26.137 14.12 5.3 0.078 (N-S)

06.02.2017 13:58 39.5303 26.1351 8.70 5.3 0.103 (N-S)

07.02.2017 05:24 39.5205 26.157 6.24 5.2 0.090 (E-W)

10.02.2017 11:55 39.5236 26.1946 7.01 5.0 0.038 (N-S)

12.02.2017 16:48 39.5336 26.17 7.00 5.3 0.089 (E-W)

Figure 1 (a) February 6-24 2017 Çanakkale –Ayvacık Earthquakes and aftershocks (DEMP, 2017) (b) Active fault

map for Ayvacık, Çanakkale (Emre et al., 2013) 5

Figure 2 Distribution of the 6-16 February Gülpınar/Ayvacık Earthquakes via date and cumulative number up to

related date

(a) (b)

3

In Turkey, there are many different styles of construction type for supporting system. More than 90% of these are reinforced

concrete in city centers. However traditional rural domestic style of the supporting system is very distinctive resulting from

cultural attributes related to the availability of the material and climate condition of the building site. Timber is also one

main material preferred building framed mansions and dwellings especially in the Black Sea region of Turkey and in other

regions of the hill/mountain side where timber is abundant. In any case stone continues to be easily found and therefore lack 5

of timber leave people no choice but use more stone in the construction details. However, stone is not convenient material,

because of its unit weight and hard to process, in the earthquake prone area. Timber has also an extensive history as a main

structural “Hatıl” reinforcing element in rubble stone, brick and adobe houses, the predominant types of houses for ordinary

people and especially rural areas (Hughes, 2000) (Fig. 3).

10

Figure 3 Typical wall construction detail (Hughes, 2000) and typical view of the dwelling from the region

In the reconnaissance area, observations showed that the construction materials and skills are extremely deficient. Modern

materials and techniques are just used in a small part of the observed region. Moreover, cement mortar between stone was

not used for almost 50% of the wall. There are a few of building in which reinforced concrete element partly or fully used in 15

the reconnaissance area. Curing of concrete is still not practiced as an integral part of the concreting process. The concrete

blocks are of poor quality because of the poor quality of the concrete, a lack of compaction and very little or no curing. The

existing building types in the area are shown in Fig. 4.

A field reconnaissance was carried out by the authors immediately after the earthquakes on 12, February, and the

observations were reported in the present paper. The authors also experienced 12 February Mw=5.3 earthquake during their 20

observations. Objective of the field reconnaissance was to record the causes of the damage patterns observed in the

buildings, mainly in the rural areas affected from the earthquakes swarm. The paper discusses the seismological aspects of

the earthquakes, describes the classifications of buildings in the area and elaborates on the performance of various building

types during the earthquakes.

25

4

Figure 4 Existing building types in reconnaissance area: a) hatıl dwelling b) stone and brick in cement mortar, c)

engineered RC building d) hatıl building with heavy roof, e) historical masonry with cut stone, f) cut stone without

mortar, g) stone without mortar, h), i) stone in cement mortar with reinforced concrete.

2 Seismicity of the Region 5

Turkey is earthquake-prone country which is located seismically active regions in ‘Alp–Himalaya Earthquake belt’, and its

complex deformation results from the continental collision between African and Eurasian plates (Fig. 5a). The major

neotectonic elements of the region are the dextral North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ), the Sinistral East Anatolian Fault

Zone (EAFZ) and the Aegean–Cyprus Arc which forms a convergent plate boundary between the Afro-Arabian and

Anatolian plates (Gürer and Bayrak, 2017). The geological events in the region such as plate motions, seismic activities, 10

crustal deformations are attributed to these major neotectonic entities (Bozkurt, 2001).

In this study, investigated region, north-west Anatolia, as both land and sea, is one of the most important active seismic and

deformation region between Eurasian and African tectonic plates. The region is affected from both strike-slip tectonic

regime which is a general characteristic of NAFZ and extensional regime of west Anatolian block. The most effective

earthquake in instrumental period (after 1900) around the region are Aegean Sea earthquake (M=7.2) occurred in 1981, 15

Ayvacık-Çanakkale earthquake (M=7.0) in 1919 and Edremit gulf earthquake (M=6.8) in 1944 (KOERI, 2017) as shown in

Figure 5b.

5

Figure 5 Simplified Tectonic Map of Turkey (USGS, 2005)

3 Ground motions and Response spectra

An instrument situated in a low-rise appurtenant building adjacent to the local office of the Forestry Operation Directorate of

Çanakkale Ayvacık recorded the shock as being 15~25 km away from the hypocenters. The three accelerations recorded by 5

this instrument are given in Fig. 6. As seen from this figure, the peak ground accelerations (amax) are 70~110 mG (cm/s2) in

the North-South direction, 70~90 mG in the East–West direction, and 20~30 mG in the vertical direction for the shocks

bigger than Mw=5. According to earthquake zoning map of Turkey, prepared by General Directorate of Disaster Affairs in

1996, the seismic zone of the city of Çanakkale is classified as 1, where the probability of exceeding an effective peak

ground acceleration of 0.4g is 10 percent in 50 years or the return period is 475 years (TEC 2007). As can be seen in Fig. 6, 10

the peak value of acceleration occurred 110 cm/s2 in the N–S component maximally. It should be noted that peak ground

acceleration didn’t exceed the seismic hazard defined as to be 0.4g for the area in the seismic zone map of Turkey.

Figure 6 Three components of ground acceleration (Mw> 5.2) of February 6-24, 2017 Çanakkale Earthquakes

(a) (b)

06.02.2017 06:51 Mw=5.3 06.02.2017 13:58 Mw=5.3 12.02.2017 16:48 Mw=5.3

6

Response spectra with damping ratio of 2 and 5% for horizontal components are computed and given in Fig. 7. This figure

shows that the earthquake shaking would be most effective on structures having a natural period of approximately up to 0.4

s. The strong ground motion records, taken from Forestry Operation Directorate enabled us to determine the attenuation of

the ground accelerations. The peak ground acceleration from the five earthquakes was approximately 0.105 g at the station,

which is 24 km from the epicenter. Similarly, the peak ground acceleration were 0.03 g, 0.009 g and 0.004 g at Ezine, 5

Bozcaada and Bayramic stations, which are 31, 33, and 48 km far from the epicenter, respectively

*This earthquake is the second earthquake occurred in the same day having a magnitude of 5.3

Figure 7 Elastic acceleration response spectrums for N–S and E–W components of (Mw> 5) of February 6-24, 2017 10

Çanakkale Earthquakes

The peak ground acceleration (PGA) values of Ayvacık records are indicated on prepared attenuation curve by Gülkan and

Kalkan (2002) for M = 5.5 as shown in Fig. 8. The correlation of the observed data with the proposed empirical expression is

very satisfactory. It should be noted that because the observed towns are approximately within 3-5 km distance to the

epicenter of the earthquakes, the attenuation relation point out the damaged and collapsed building might have experienced 15

0.2 g and 0.25 g PGA for rock and soil site condition respectively during the earthquakes. When elastic response spectra

calculated by using the Earthquakes and attenuation would be considered, the results show that the maximum acceleration

7

exciting the buildings might reach maximally 0.25g in the reconnaissance area. On the other hand, the damping ratio

maximally get 5% for such masonry and adobe structures according to Turkish Earthquake Code, however, offered the

design acceleration as 0.5g in this region for the masonry buildings. Even this comparison is the best evidence that damaged

or collapsed building did not get any engineering service or were not built considering any code rule.

5

Figure 8 Curves of peak acceleration versus distance for magnitude 5.5, 6.5 and 7.5 earthquakes at rock and soft soil

sites (Gülkan and Kalkan, 2002)

4 Damage profile

Since, the energy release was relatively very small comparing to the earthquakes occurred on NAFZ or on the other most 10

active zone EAFZ of Turkey, no RC structures collapsed in the area other than the poorly constructed stone masonry

dwelling in rural area. According to data obtained from Provincial Directorates of Environment and Urbanization, in twenty-

nine villages alone, where there were about 2600 damaged or collapsed buildings, more than 25% of the mansion or

dwelling either collapsed or were heavily damaged. According to official estimates, within the affected area, a total of 1465

structure (including buildings, houses, barns, offices, stores and haylofts) were heavily damaged or collapsed, 1170 of them 15

suffered medium or minor repairable damage. Also, a total of 1990 structures did not experience any damage. The locations

of twenty-nine villages together with epicenters of considered earthquakes, their magnitudes and PGAs are given in Figure 9

while number of damaged structures and damage ratios according to these villages are given in Figure 10 and 11,

respectively. Also, distribution maps of buildings according to percentage for damage levels are given in Figures 12, 13 and

14, respectively. According to this figures, single or a few storey non engineered heavy masonry buildings with very poor 20

details, however, along the sloping hills to the west of Gülpınar-Ayvacık, practically survived the earthquake without

significant damage (Figure 14). It should be also noted that Gülpınar is relatively close to the epicenter of the earthquake

than other town such as Taşağıl, Yukarıköy and Çamköy where dwellings were suffered very high damages. Gülpınar is also

historical center in this area and has the cultural heritages, so the differences in terms of the cultural accumulation and

development level between Gülpınar and the other villages affect the quality of the construction. Thus, the structural damage 25

8

was concentrated mainly in the villages which have relatively very low economical level and where there are not any

engineered buildings observed by the authors.

Figure 9 Villages affected from Ayvacık earthquakes swarm and locations of investigated earthquakes 5

06.02.2017 06:51 Mw: 5.3

PGA: 0.078

06.02.2017 13:58 Mw: 5.3

PGA: 0.103 07.02.2017

Mw: 5.2 PGA: 0.090

12.02.2017 Mw: 5.3

PGA: 0.089 10.02.2017

ML: 5.0

PGA: 0.038

9

Figure 10 Number of buildings according to damage level due to Ayvacık Earthquake swarm

Figure 11 Damage ratio in Villages according to damage level due to Ayvacık Earthquake swarm 5

3511

194

65 50

170

19

145

33 4514

57 40 2868 41

7031 16 24

79 17317 12 4

44

49

14 21

128

18

86

53 219

5439

30

79

3546

5219 35

60203

2119 26 28

11 7646

0

56

34 27

39

11

180

14 72

20

77

5842

111

101

236

75

53

84

376

845

113

32

115 96

60 60

90

Taş

ağil

Tab

akla

r

Yuk

arik

öy

Çam

köy

Taş

boğa

zi

Çam

kaba

lak

Kes

tane

lik

Tuz

la

Tam

iş

Bab

ader

e

Ere

cek

Nal

döke

n

Koc

aköy

Koy

unev

i

Bad

emli

Bab

akal

e

Kor

ubaş

i

Bek

taş

Kös

eler

Bel

en

Kös

eder

e

Gül

pina

r

Paş

aköy

Kul

fal

Bal

aban

li

Söğ

ütlü

İlya

sfak

i

Şap

köy

Kor

uoba

Undamaged Slightly damaged Heavily damaged/Collapsed

7873

6558

51 50

4035 33 33 33 30 29 28 26 23 20 20 18 17 15 14 11 11 10 9 6 3 3

927

16

12 21

38

38

21

53

1521 29 28 30 31

20

13

33

22 24

12 1714

33

17 21

14

10

41

13

0

19

30 28

12

23

44

14

5247

41 42 42 43

5767

47

60 59

73 6975

56

73 7177

87

57

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Taş

ağil

Tab

akla

r

Yuk

arik

öy

Çam

köy

Taş

boğa

zi

Çam

kaba

lak

Kes

tane

lik

Tuz

la

Tam

iş

Bab

ader

e

Ere

cek

Nal

döke

n

Koc

aköy

Koy

unev

i

Bad

emli

Bab

akal

e

Kor

ubaş

i

Bek

taş

Kös

eler

Bel

en

Kös

eder

e

Gül

pina

r

Paş

aköy

Kul

fal

Bal

aban

li

Söğ

ütlü

İlya

sfak

i

Şap

köy

Kor

uoba

Undamaged Slightly damaged Heavily damaged/Collapsed

10

Figure 12 Distribution maps of undamaged buildings according to percentage

Figure 13 Distribution maps of slightly damaged buildings according to percentage

11

Figure 14 Distribution maps of damaged/collapsed buildings according to percentage

Failure mechanisms observed during the 2017 Çanakkale Earthquakes were also observed in other recent moderate

earthquakes in Bala (ML=5.5), Doğubeyazıt (ML=5.1) and Dinar (ML=5.9) etc. (Tezcan, 1996; Bayraktar et al., 2007; 5

Adanur, 2008; Ural et al., 2012). Adanur (2010) showed that in 20 and 27 December 2007 Bala (Ankara) earthquakes,

masonry buildings were built in three types in the affected area: (1) stone masonry buildings with walls made of natural

shaped stones, (2) stone masonry buildings with walls made of cut stones, and (3) mixed masonry buildings with walls made

of masonry materials like stones and mud bricks or stones and bricks or stones and briquette. From all a total of 945

buildings were heavily damaged or collapsed in Bala. Bayraktar et al. (2007) reported that 1000 building affected from the 10

earthquake in Doğubeyazıt. Similar to the above-mentioned studies, so far experiences from such moderate earthquakes in

rural area of Turkey have shown that even low-moderate earthquakes may cause significant damages on non-reinforced

masonry structures (Fig. 15). This type of masonry is among the most vulnerable type of buildings during an earthquake.

Even under moderate lateral force such a masonry structure is damaged or collapsed, due to lack of shear strength, improper

interlocking mechanism and/or poor bond between stone-stone or stone-mortar. In this case shear failure is inevitable in 15

plane forming of diagonal cracks or similar cracks wherever is suitable to damage through the wall because of defects due to

workmanship. Furthermore, when the wall did not design considering any engineered rule, the catastrophic and rapid

12

collapses occur in out-of-plane flexure mode. In addition to the general failure mode above mentioned, the technical reasons

for damages and collapse observed reconnaissance may be summarized in detail as follows.

Figure 15 Totally collapsed examples from Ayvacık, Çanakkale 2017 earthquakes swarm 5

Inadequate interlocking among the stone

In the rural area of Turkey, the construction of dwelling is by the owner –occupier with aid of craftsmen who live in the

locality but who are not full-time builders. These builders are usually taught their trade as a result of apprenticeship.

Consequently, they have their own tools without any scientific rule and in the site the construction technique is still alive and

building technique is so similar among the dwelling. For example, during the observation it is apparently shown that even 10

thick mortar or mud was not used as binding agent between stone or masonry unit for almost all damaged dwellings. The

Fig. 16 is a conspicuous example that heavy damages during the earthquakes were taken place for lack of mortar between

stones. At the end of several moderate earthquakes this masonry dwelling became unstable.

13

Figure 16 An example of damaged dwelling due to inadequate interlocking

Another damage type observed in the region is outward bulking of wall which caused by interlocking deficiency. The reason

of this deficiency is vertical gap between stones creating wall thickness as shown in Fig. 17. In order to prevent this damage,

horizontal elements such as hatıl or key stone, which provide integrity to masonry wall, can be used in specific intervals 5

vertically. The key stones or hatıls can provide limited resistance to lateral seismic loads and thus probably prevent the out-

of-plan failure on some part of masonry walls.

Figure 17 Schematics of a conventional wall section without through stone, b wall section with through stones 10

(Sharma, 2016) c observed damages in the region.

14

An additional interlocking damage type is observed at the intersection of perpendicular walls (Fig. 18). One of the walls acts

out of plane while other remains very stiff in plane resulting in inevitable cracks. Damages in this type can either result in

gaps developing between the in-plane and the out of plane wall or vertical cracks may occur in the out of plane wall (Tolles

et al. 1996). Further phase of this damage may result in out of plane failure of gable-end wall. To avoid intersection damage, 5

interlocking between perpendicular walls in the corners should be appropriately designed against lateral earthquake forces.

Figure 18 Observed damages at intersection of perpendicular walls

Irregular designed wall with cavity 10

The design process of the masonry buildings needs to regularity more than other supporting system, because lateral load

resisting system must have continuity to meet shear force stemming from earthquake. In the rural area, however, traditional

fireplace was used in the buildings and it is built within the wall by decreasing the wall thickness or curving the wall

outward. In such a case irretrievable damage is occurred on the wall because of the decreasing shear resistance (Fig. 19).

This damage type was observed for different masonry structures in the site. For example, it can be seen from Fig. 19 that 15

there were different examples like cut stone masonry, stone with plaster and stone without mortar. The common damage type

is most likely stemming from the lack of skill of craftsman or traditional habits.

15

Figure 19 Examples of out of plane collapse due to wall cavity

Heavy Earth Roof

Another important reason that causes damage is the roof made from a thick and heavy layer of mud spread upon wooden

logs (Fig. 20). This technique is widely used in some part of Anatolian region where timber is increasingly scarce. These 5

heavy earth roofs are generally made hardening spreading soil with a cylindrical stone. To make the earth roof more durable

against water leakage need to be thickened more and more over the years. Consequently, heavier earth roof cause bigger

shear force during the earthquake. In general, the roof either supported by the beam and indirectly by the wall or inner

structures beams and columns were round or sub-round in section, the trunk without its bark. This made connections and

good bearing surfaces between them virtually impossible. Such beams were prone to roll off the other during the earthquake 10

induced motions. Also, the round beam-ends point loaded (to an excessive degree) the supporting walls beneath and then

collapse of the earth roof or wall is inevitable.

16

Figure 20 Examples of heavy earth wall collapse

insufficient wall rigidities

In many cases, distinctive diagonal or inclined cracks have been observed in load-bearing window piers or walls with low

width-to-height ratios as a result of inadequate shear resistance (Tomazevic, 1999). While bending and shear from moderate 5

earthquake can be easily resisted by reinforced-masonry with lateral and horizontal elements such as RC or timber (Fig. 21),

the dwelling made by stone in no mortar cannot resist them. This construction defect is causing in-plane failures by means of

excessive shear force or bending or out of plane failure by bending depending on the aspect ratio of the unreinforced

masonry elements.

10

Figure 21 Examples of undamaged dwellings

17

Many weak masonry walls without mortar had diagonal or inclined shear cracking as a result of cyclic shear forces applied

during the earthquakes (Fig. 22). But this diagonal shear cracking does not necessarily lead to total collapse in general.

However, collapse may be inevitable if the triangular wall blocks on each side of a full diagonal crack become unstable by

substantially losing their interlock or friction resistance along the cracks (Fig. 23). Similar failures were previously reported

around the world (Ural et al., 2012; Klingner, 2006). 5

Figure 22 Examples of diagonal shear cracking

Figure 23 Out of plane failures depending on improper wall thickness and/or height-length ratio 10

18

There were no industrial buildings within Ayvacık and no damage was observed along the highway or at bridges. There were

not any reported landslides, rock fall.

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the characteristics of earthquakes and to investigate the damage and collapse 5

mechanisms observed in buildings during a rarely occurred event called earthquake swarm struck Ayvacık, Turkey, between

06 - 24 February 2017. This earthquake swarm includes more than 1500 earthquakes with some moderate earthquakes (Mw

> 5.0). Additionally, the properties of these earthquakes regarding civil engineering such as peak ground acceleration,

response spectrum are specified. Although determined elastic spectrum remains under design spectrum of TEC (2007),

significant damages and failures of many masonry structures were observed in reconnaissance area. The reason of these 10

damages and failures observed in survey can be explained as: (1) damaged buildings are close to epicenter of earthquakes,

(2) influence of pre-existing cracks on the performance of buildings due to many earthquakes occurred in a short period of

time, (3) deficiency of construction process including poor workmanship and material quality, construction without any

scientific rule or code and lack of tie or connection between structural elements.

In conclusion, it is suggested by the authors that the construction practice, commonly used in the affected region and caused 15

damage and failure of buildings, should be avoided and if this kind of structures are available in the region, required

precautions should be taken against probable earthquakes.

Acknowledgement

We thanks to Çanakkale Provincial Directorates of Environment and Urbanization for sharing damage data of villages and 20

also appreciate the sincere contribution of Associate Professor Uğur AVDAN from Anadolu University in preparing the

distribution maps of damage ratios.

References

Adanur, S. (2010), “Performance of masonry buildings during the 20 and 27 December 2007 Bala (Ankara) earthquakes in

Turkey”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10(12), 2547. doi: 10.5194/nhess-10-2547-2010 25

Bayraktar, A., Coşkun N. and Yalçin A. (2007), “Damages of masonry buildings during the July 2, 2004 Doğubayazıt (Ağrı)

earthquake in Turkey”, Engineering Failure Analysis, 14, 147-157. doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2005.11.011

Bozkurt, E. (2001), “Neotectonics of Turkey – a synthesis” Geodinamica Acta., 14, 3-30. doi:10.1016/S0985-

3111(01)01066-X

19

DEMP (2017), 12.02.2017 Ayvacık-Çanakkale Earthquake Report, Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Disaster and

Emergency Management Presidency, Ankara, Turkey. http://www.deprem.gov.tr/depremdokumanlari/1495

Emre, O., Duman, T. Y., Özalp, S., Elmacı, H., Olgun, Ş. and Şaroğlu, F. (2013), “1/1.125. 000 scale active fault map of

Turkey” General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Special publication series (in Turkish).

Gülkan, P. and Kalkan, E. (2002), “Attenuation modeling of recent earthquakes in Turkey”, Journal of Seismology, 6(3), 5

397-409. doi:10.1023/A:1020087426440

Gürer, A. and Bayrak, M. (2007), “Relation between electrical resistivity and earthquake generation in the crust of West

Anatolia, Turkey”, Tectonophysics, 445(Lithospheric structure of the continents), 49-65. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2007.06.009

Hughes, R. (2000), “Hatil Construction in Turkey. In Earthquake-safe: lessons to be learned from traditional buildings,

International Council on Monuments and Sites, (p. 1-9). 10

KOERI (2017). 06-24 February, 2017 Gülpınar-Ayvacık (Çanakkale) earthquake report. Kandilli Observatory and

Earthquake Research Institute, İstanbul, Turkey.

Klingner, R. E. (2006), “Behavior of masonry in the Northridge (US) and Tecomán–Colima (Mexico) earthquakes: Lessons

learned, and changes in US design provisions”, Construction And Building Materials, 20 (Structural Masonry and

Earthquakes), 209-219. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.024 15

MRE, (2017), http://yerbilimleri.mta.gov.tr/anasayfa.aspx.

Sharma, K., Deng, L. and Noguez, C.C. (2016), “Review article: Field investigation on the performance of building

structures during the April 25, 2015, Gorkha earthquake in Nepal”, Engineering Structures, 121,61-74.

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.04.043

TEC (2007). “Specification for structures to be built in seismic zones”, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement 20

Government of Republic of Turkey, Turkey

Tezcan, S. and İpek, M. (1996). “A reconnaissance report: 1995 Dinar, Turkey earthquake”, Engineering Structures, 18(12),

906-916.

Tolles, E. L., Webster, F. A., Crosby, A. and Kimbro, E.E. (1996) Survey of damage to historic adobe buildings after the

January 1994 Northridge earthquake, Getty Conservation Institute, USA. 25

Tomazevic, M. (1999), Earthquake-resistant Design of Masonry Buildings, Imperial College Press, London, UK.

Ural, A., Doǧangün, A., Sezen, H. and Angin, Z. (2012), “Seismic performance of masonry buildings during the 2007 Bala,

Turkey earthquakes”, Natural Hazards, 60(3), 1013-1026. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9887-4

USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (2005), http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2003/eq_030501/ neic_tgac_maps.html.

30